Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 February 21

< February 20	February 22 >

February 21 edit

Template:Content is copyrighted bu UP1340 Productions edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was speedy delete (non-admin close) Beeblebrox (talk) 20:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Content is copyrighted bu UP1340 Productions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary template as copyrighted material is not accepted on Wikipedia. ... discospinster _talk 21:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nom sums it up nicely, this literally cannot be used anywhere on Wikipedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Template created by a new user with no understanding of our licensing rules. caknuck _° is a silly pudding 04:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NLT. I don't think speedy deletion criterion T2 (misrepresentation of policy) will stretch quite far enough to cover this, but I can't see myself challenging a deletion on those grounds, either. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment There's also a typo in the name "bu" instead of "by." Anyhoo, this does seem like an obvious snowball case, and we've got some admins here in the discussion... (hint hint wink wink) Beeblebrox (talk) 07:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this template will probably never be used except for articles which will probably be speedy deleted, or blatant violations of the non-free content policy. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The creator intended it for images, not articles. Of course it makes such images entirely unsuitable for Wikipedia and speedily deletable under criterion #I3; so the creator of this template has effectively created a tag for marking xyr own images for speedy deletion. Uncle G (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete this sucker as blatantly against policy. Daniel Case (talk) 15:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:West Plains MO TV edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. delldot ∇. 02:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:West Plains MO TV (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

West Plains is not its own television market, nor does one religious LPTV make one. Howell County is in the Springfield market. azumanga (talk) 17:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wow. One LPTV station != broadcast template. JPG-GR (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per T3 As above nicely phrased it, "One LPTV station != broadcast template". Otherwise... /me shudders at the thought of having millions-billions of useless little templates. Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 22:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.